This oughtta be a mandatory warning on all Miers threads.
Another worthless opinion from one of the more outspoken new members of the ACLU. Some will go a long way to get noticed, especially if they used to get more attention.
Mr. Sessions (R)Mr. Sessions affirmative…. “My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy.”
Mr. Cornyn (R) Mr Cornyn…affirmative "The President has announced his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.
"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."
Mr. Coburn (R) Mr.Coburn..affirmative. “Harriet Miers deserves a fair and thorough hearing and confirmation process. I look forward to learning more about her qualifications and judicial philosophy in the coming days,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that he plans to meet with Miers this week.”
.
Yea we all know Bush is surrounded with only those who agree with him, oh, wait a minute, that was Clintoon, not Bush.
WHAT CRAP
Yep, Bob Barr..closet DU'er from waaaay back! LOL
Or sexist, he might be elitist...doesn't mean he's wrong.
The Atlanta Urinal-Constipation remains another useless liberal paper.
Great day to sign up. You'll fit right in with the Bush bashers.
This idea that the job ought to go to the most qualified, or the most qualified qualified, is simply a mechanistic idea, and totally fallacious if the most qualified also happens to be, e.g., a Marxist. The nominee may have been selected, at least partly, on another basis besides a pageful of words.
Like I should pay attention to the ACLU. Dont think so.
We'll try very hard to remember who you were.
Hey Bob Barr...STFU and go back to the anti-Christian ACLU.
This oughtta be a mandatory warning on all Miers threads.
Can we get a mulligan on Specter, Jeffords, and McCain?
Aye, but the Amen Bush crowd on FR will have no such luxury.
He opens with one of the democrats' top talking points. Interesting.
Using that logic, Mr Barr....none of the nominees mentioned by pundits is the single most qualified person to replace O'Connor so really, why are you whining?
I was willing to listen to what Barr had to say and then I read this opening.
I no longer give two craps what Bob Barr has to say.
I have always wondered what would have happened if those guys back in Salem, MA had captured, tortured and tried a real witch. I'll bet she would have really made them pay.
Bob Barr, pimp and whore for the ACLU carries zero weight with most of us.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011936.php
Who's Cracking Up?
Liberals everywhere are convinced that their hour is at hand. The latest voice of left-wing triumphalism is Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who announced "The Conservative Crack-up" today:
The “movement” – that began 50 years ago with the founding of Bill Buckley’s National Review; that had its coming of age in the Reagan Years; that reached its zenith with Bush’s victory in 2000 — is falling apart at the seams.
Fineman's theory is that one by one, the "constituent parts" of the conservative coalition are "going their own way," which is to say, turning their backs on the Bush administration. He goes down the list; in most cases, however, his analysis is dubious at best:
About religious conservatives, Fineman writes:
The Harriet Miers nomination was the final insult.***[W]hat really frosts the religious types is that Bush evidently feels that he can only satisfy them by stealth — by nominating someone with absolutely no paper trail. It’s an affront. And even though Dr. Dobson is on board — having been cajoled aboard by Rove — I don’t sense that there is much enthusiasm for the enterprise out in Colorado Springs.
I expect that any GOP 2008 hopeful who wants evangelical support — people like Sam Brownback, Rick Santorum and maybe even George Allen — will vote against Miers's confirmation in the Senate.
With all due respect to Mr. Fineman, this is the dumbest bit of political analysis I've seen in a long time. I am not aware of a single religious leader who has in any way objected to the Miers nomination or called it an "affront" to religious people. I know a great many religious conservatives, and not a single one of them adopts this view.
The idea that "religious types"--do you get the feeling that Fineman is writing about a group with whom he has little personal experience?--are "frosted" because Miers is a "stealth" candidate with "absolutely no paper trail" is mystifying. Miers has no paper trail as a judge or legal scholar because she has spent her career as a (circumspect) practicing lawyer, but one area where she is anything but "stealthy" is her religious life, about which a great deal--too much, in my opinion--has been said.
So Fineman's analysis makes no sense, and is supported by no data or even anecdotal observation. Here's a prediction, the exact opposite of Fineman's: not a single Republican Senator--least of all a Senator associated with the religious right--will vote against Miers.
The second group Fineman addresses is "corporate CEOs," who, he says, consider the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina "a mortal embarrassment to their class." Huh? This rather weird claim is supported by a single CEO whom Fineman met at a "typical CEO haunt." I suspect, however, that a large majority of CEOs understand that the federal role in disaster response is limited. In any event, if Fineman thinks that top corporate executives constitute a major part of the Republican Party, he hasn't been paying attention.
So far, we have two categories of people who supposedly have abandoned the President, with the evidence adduced consisting of exactly one human being. Fineman's next group is "smaller government deficit hawks." Here he is finally on to something, although "spending hawks" would, I think, be more accurate. There are two significant issues on which the Republican base is upset with the administration: illegal immigration and out-of-control domestic spending.
But does Fineman seriously think that small-government types will start turning to the Democrats? I don't. And he may not have noticed that, while the administration is still AWOL, Republicans in Congress seem to have gotten the message from the party's faithful, and serious efforts to cut Katrina spending, and find offsets elsewhere in the budget, are underway.
Next, "isolationists," who Fineman says "are back." Nonsense. Fineman's claim that concern about illegal immigration is the new cause of the "isolationists" is a complete non sequitur which is supported only by Fineman's reference to Pat Buchanan, one of the few actual isolationists who is, or once was, a Republican. Virtually all actual isolationists--bring the troops home from Iraq now, and who cares about the consequences?--are already Democrats.
Next, "neocons," by which Fineman apparently means anyone who supports the war in Iraq. These people, Fineman asserts, "seem to have given up on the ability of the Bush Administration to see that vision through."
Again, this is an assertion with no apparent support, save for a reference to the Weekly Standard. As a contributor to the Standard, I will say that if Fineman actually believes that magazine's writers and editors have abandoned the administration, let alone jumped ship to the Democrats, he is deluded.
And finally: "supply siders," Fineman acknowledges, "have yet to be disappointed" by the administration. However, he predicts that the President will call for a tax increase, thereby making the conservative crack-up "complete." I think the chance of that happening is close to zero, and I think Fineman and many others underestimate the depth of support among Republicans for a President who cuts their taxes.
The question remains, though, what is fueling this liberal triumphalism? The answer, no doubt, is President Bush's falling poll ratings. Another one came out today, showing the President at a record low for his Presidency. It seems that Bush's poll numbers have been in a steady decline almost from the day of his second inauguration. This, fundamentally, is what has the left dancing in the streets.
But are Bush's numbers really that bad? His current Real Clear Politics average stands at 41.7% approval. That is at or about the low point in nearly five years in office. How does it compare to other presidents' lowest poll ratings? Actually, it's not bad. Here are the low approval ratings for the last seven presidents:
*Johnson: 35%
*Nixon: 24%
*Ford: 37%
*Carter: 28%
*Reagan: 35%
*Bush I: 29%
*Clinton: 37%
Yes, that's right: Every president since 1963 has had approval ratings, at one time or another during his administration, at least five points lower than Bush's current nadir.
Objectively, the evidence for a "conservative crack-up" is thin, at best. The reality is that the Republican base is holding remarkably firm, in the face of a media onslaught against the Bush administration that has no parallel in modern history, and following months of little but bad news: gas prices, hurricanes, and casualties in Iraq (the only news most people hear from that part of the world).
Things could change, of course, but my guess is that the next year's news will be better for the administration and for Republicans than the past year's. The price of gas has likely peaked; Iraq will continue to stabilize, and troops will come home; absent more natural disasters, the economy will resume its steady growth; Harriet Miers will be confirmed and start voting with conservative majorities on the Court. Most likely, liberal dreams of the end of the conservative era will have to be deferred again.
Posted by John at 07:41 PM | Permalink